On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 09:34:23PM +0100, Pankaj Raghav wrote: > >> What should be the approach to solve this issue? 2 options that I had in my mind: > >> > >> 1. Similar to [2], we could add a small hack in mkfs xfs to ignore the log space > >> requirement while running fstests for these profiles. > >> > >> 2. Increase the size of filesystem under test to accommodate these profiles. It could > >> even be a conditional increase in filesystem size if the FSB > 16k to reduce the impact > >> on existing FS test time for 4k FSB. > >> > >> Let me know what would be the best way to move forward. > >> > >> Here are the results: > >> > >> Test environment: > >> kernel Release: 6.8.0-rc1 > >> xfsprogs: 6.5.0 > >> Architecture: aarch64 > >> Page size: 64k > >> > >> Test matrix: > >> > >> | Test | 32k rmapbt=0 | 32k rmapbt=1 | 64k rmapbt=0 | 64k rmapbt=1 | > >> | -------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | > >> | generic/042 | fail | fail | fail | fail | > >> | generic/081 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/108 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/455 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/457 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/482 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/704 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/730 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | generic/731 | fail | fail | pass | fail | > >> | shared/298 | pass | pass | pass | fail | > > > > I noticed test failures on these tests when running djwong-wtf: > > generic/042 > > generic/081 > > generic/108 > > generic/219 > > generic/305 > > generic/326 > > generic/562 > > generic/704 > > xfs/093 > > xfs/113 > > xfs/161 > > xfs/262 > > xfs/508 > > xfs/604 > > xfs/709 > > > > Ok, there are some more tests that I didn't catch. I will check them out. > > > Still sorting through all of them, but a large portion of them are the > > same failure to format due to minimum log size constraints. I'd bump > > them up to ~500M (or whatever makes them work) since upstream doesn't > > really support small filesystems anymore. > > Thanks for the reply. So we can have a small `if` conditional block for xfs > to have fs size = 500M in generic test cases. I'd suggest creating a helper where you pass in the fs size you want and it rounds that up to the minimum value. That would then get passed to _scratch_mkfs_sized or _scsi_debug_get_dev. (testing this as we speak...) > We do this irrespective of filesystem blocksizes right? If we do that, then we can > remove the special conditional that allows tiny filesystems for fstests in mkfs > as well. I dunno. In the ideal world we'd figure out the fsblock size, but divining that from the MKFS_OPTIONS is hard fugly string parsing. --D > > -- > Pankaj > > >
